The most well-documented version of this is likely the tale of Exxon’s internal climate research. James Black, a senior company scientist, gave a presentation to Exxon’s management committee in July 1977 that was remarkably direct by the standards of what the company would say in public for the next forty years. He informed the executives that climate change was most likely caused by the burning of fossil fuels. He revised his warning a year later, informing the company that a two to three degree increase in global temperatures would result from doubling atmospheric CO2, which is in line with current scientific consensus. He proposed that the business have five to ten years to make difficult choices regarding its energy strategy. In response, the company funded some of the most ambitious climate research of the time, including studies on ocean carbon absorption that cost over a million dollars. However, once the science became politically problematic, the company changed its course completely.

It wasn’t an accidental pivot. The public relations consultants employed by the tobacco industry to question the connection between smoking and cancer were also hired by the fossil fuel industry. There is proof of the parallel, so it is not accidental. Both sectors had to deal with a similar issue: their main product was causing harm that the scientific community was becoming more and more able to prove. Instead of addressing the harm, both sectors decided to create doubt about the science itself. You postpone the moment when the solution becomes a political priority indefinitely by keeping the public debating whether the problem actually exists. For decades, the tactic was effective in a variety of situations and substances.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION TABLE — FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY, LOBBYING & CLIMATE SCIENCE

By most accounts, what people discover when they leave the industry and begin looking at the record from the other side is unsettling in its scope rather than surprising in its content. The oil industry has been “disingenuous from the beginning” on climate change, according to Kevin Anderson, an engineer who worked in the sector for years before becoming a well-known climate researcher and former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. This means that the discrepancy between private knowledge and public positioning has existed essentially since the beginning of the modern era of climate science. There was research. There was no lack of knowledge. It was a conscious decision.

Dar-Lon Chang, a former ExxonMobil engineer who appears in FRONTLINE’s documentary series on the fossil fuel industry, gave a description that encapsulates this from the perspective of a big corporation. He described management’s lack of interest in learning the answer to the question of whether the company should measure methane leaks from its natural gas operations, which at the time was being promoted as a cleaner alternative to coal. Because they would have to take action if they discovered an issue. Ignorance is not the reasoning behind not measuring. Preserving deniability is an institutional decision. It’s difficult to ignore that framing and see it as systematic rather than the observation of a single engineer.

If anything, the lobbying activities that stem from this institutional stance are more complex than the public record typically reveals. About 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists were present at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, according to Global Witness. Some of them had government badges, some had NGO credentials, and some held positions that made it difficult to identify their ultimate employers. Former Culver City,

California mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells has talked about witnessing fossil fuel lobbyists work local government procedures while also acting on behalf of business clients. The Guardian has documented this “double agent” phenomenon, in which the same people have influence in several directions and the conflicts seldom appear in any official disclosure. It’s possible that the majority of attendees at those COP sessions in Belém were genuinely unable to distinguish between participants who were there to speed up an agreement and those who were there to slow it down.

Reading through the accumulated documentation gives the impression that the industry’s strategy’s most detrimental effect was time consumption rather than mind-changing. The Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes, who has studied this topic for a longer period of time than most, put it bluntly: it was never conceivable that big oil companies were ignorant of the science. What they decided to do with that knowledge was always the question. Those who switch sides often discover that they already knew the solution; they had simply not finished reading the supporting documentation.

It turns out that the difficult aspect is not the science itself. For decades, there has been a stable consensus on climate change, based in part on data collected by the same corporations that funded campaigns to cast doubt on it in the years that followed. The industry realized in 1977 that the shift away from fossil fuels was always a matter of policy choice rather than scientific uncertainty, as those who study it today can show from the internal record. The ambiguity was created. The paperwork was authentic. When they finally read the documents themselves, those who worked in manufacturing tend to characterize the experience as a confirmation of something they had been silently carrying for a long time rather than as a revelation.

The post The Fossil Fuel Lobbyist Who Became a Climate Scientist — and What She Found When She Switched Sides appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.